Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Albert Kennedy, No. B-121830.
Joel N. Brewer, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 249]
In this unemployment compensation case, claimant-appellant was discharged. His eligibility depends on whether the record will support the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's Finding of Fact No. 6:
"After claimant was released by his own physician to return to work, he failed to contact his employer thereafter."
This finding would clearly disqualify claimant-appellant under Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess. P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), considering the facts in this case where not only is it uncontested that there was a company rule requiring claimant-appellant to contact the employer, but in fact he had current personal knowledge of the rule by reason of a letter he received from the employer which stated, inter alia :
"We want to remind you that you are required to keep your supervisor informed monthly, in writing, stating your probable date of return to work. When your doctor indicates that he feels you may return to work, please report this fact to your supervisor at once so that we may begin to make any adjustment in the work force that may be necessary to put you back on the job.
"You will, of course, also have to be examined by the Company's physician before re-engagement. This examination should be completed prior to your proposed starting date. To facilitate this matter, we suggest you call the Employment Office (SAratoga 4-1500), Extension 2482), several days in advance for an appointment with the doctor. You will be required to bring with you a statement from your personal attending physician. For his convenience in furnishing the information we need, the attached, self-explanatory form is provided."
[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 250]
We find that there is ample evidence to support the Board of Review's finding and we, therefore, affirm.
Stating the essential facts, claimant-appellant suffered an injury unrelated to his employment and was on sick leave status. His personal physician notified the company that claimant-appellant would be able to return to work on October 15, 1973. In accordance with the procedure outlined in the quoted letter, a physical examination by the employer's ...